find the latest legal job
Part Time Risk & Compliance Officer
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· Brisbane City · Flexible Part Time Hours
View details
Infrastructure Lawyer/SA
Category: Construction Law | Location: Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs Sydney NSW
· Global elite law firm · Dedicated Infrastructure team
View details
Property Lawyer
Category: Property Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· 12 Month Contract · Diverse Work
View details
Family Lawyer
Category: Family Law | Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Boutique Firm · Great Reputation
View details
Infrastructure Lawyers
Category: Construction Law | Location: All Perth WA
· We'd be particularly interested to hear from you if you were a lawyer who knows your way around the infrastructure and energy sectors.
View details
Manufacturers copyright protection bites the dust

Manufacturers copyright protection bites the dust

AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST manufacturer and exporter of gearboxes and attachments for the earthmoving machinery industry, Brisbane-based Digga Australia Pty Ltd, has been successful in its appeal to…

AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST manufacturer and exporter of gearboxes and attachments for the earthmoving machinery industry, Brisbane-based Digga Australia Pty Ltd, has been successful in its appeal to overturn a decision ordering it to pay $80,000 to a competitor for alleged copyright infringement.

The appeal, which was heard by the Full Federal Court, is one of only two significant decisions in the past year regarding copyright/design overlap provisions and will also see Digga receive most of its legal costs, which exceed $500,000.

According to Hopgood Ganim Lawyers Special Counsel Paul Norris, who acted on behalf of Digga, the decision provides important clarification on the issue of whether functional designs should be protected by copyright.

Norris believes the decision removes any doubt as to whether functional designs are covered by the copyright/design overlap provisions of the Copyright Act.

“This decision provides clarity in an area of law that has been under intense criticism by the judiciary, lawyers and academics,” Norris said.

Norm Engineering Pty Ltd issued the proceedings against Digga, alleging that Digga had infringed Norm’s copyright in its two-dimensional drawings for the Norm “4-in-1 bucket” — an attachment for bobcats.

Digga admitted that its competitor’s product was a source of ideas for its design of an equivalent bucket. At trial, it was found that Digga had reverse-engineered a Norm 4-in-1 bucket and its creation of drawings for a particular component of the product was an infringement of Norm’s copyright.

For this Digga was ordered to pay damages of $80,000.

Norris attributes the original judgment to confusion between moral intellectual property rights, and the actual rights afforded to functional designs put to commercial use.

“He [Justice Greenwood] looked at each of those drawings and I think the judge at first instance was of the view that Digga had done something wrong by copying a bucket,” said Norris.

Digga never denied that it had sought to recreate the Norm bucket, and openly acknowledged to the court that they had purchased a Norm bucket and, from looking at that bucket, produced drawings and subsequently produced their own version of the 4-in-1 bucket.

In general terms, the decision means that once Norm produced their three-dimensional bucket from the two-dimensional original drawings and put it on the commercial market; they lost the right to copyright protection from others reproducing the product.

The timing of the case had particular significance, straddling the line between pre-existing legislation and the change to the law changed 17 June 2004. According to Norris, this is the first time that the Courts have had to review and interpret the operation of new provisions that came into force on that date.

These provisions seek to remove copyright protection for artistic works that are applied to products to encourage authors to protect their products under the Designs Act.

The reality for manufacturers could be a harsh one, Norris explained. “This act now precludes dual [copyright and design] protection, but I think it goes further, in that there are a lot of things that fall between the cracks and can neither be protected as designs — for instance if they’re highly functional — but neither can they be protected under the Copyright Act, because they’re forward in those copyright design overlap provision,” he said.

“So I think the message now is quite clear to those people who are in the business of manufacturing items from drawings. That once you’ve manufactured it, it’s open slather for your competitors to copy it.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Manufacturers copyright protection bites the dust
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Nov 17 2017
It's time for politicians to commit to eradicating domestic violence
The national shame of domestic violence cannot be left unaddressed, writes Christine Smyth. ...
Nov 16 2017
From lawyer in law firm to senior governance professional
Promoted by Governance Institute of Australia As a law graduate, Kate Griffiths never imagined...
marriage equality
Nov 16 2017
Legislation the next hurdle for marriage equality
Lawyers have underscored the importance of ensuring same-sex marriage legislation does not limit ant...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...